Today the court decided that our Constitution does not recognize groups (men or women) but all citizens equal protection under the law. (of which you agree). No matter how you might interpret the US Constitution, the court ruling does not specify qualifications to be a Citizen as being a member of a specific sexuality, religion or group. Unless of course your's is the final word on who is a United States Ciitizen .... which excludes gay and lesbians.

Hilarious, yet pitiful.

But the music is that off key spooky kind.

RM has read some of the language of the decision. It's a real stunner, folks. It finds as a matter of fact, not of law, many many things that are to me self-evident but that form the basis for denying the rights of gays and lesbians.

You can read the ruling here.

From p. 72: Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

From p. 74: Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

From p. 76: California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

From p. 77: Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same- sex or opposite-sex.

From p. 80: Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

From p. 83: Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.

From p. 84: The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

From p. 93: Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

From p. 95: The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s
adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

From p. 98: Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

From p. 101: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

From p. 108: The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.

And these are all in the section of the decision that defines facts.

I love it.

WHY did you go and do that YoYo ?


Confusing him with FACTS again !!



that's exactly it . .

course our SC will reverse the whole thing . . .

another reason NOT to elect conservative Presidents...

unless you want a theocracy.

The evidence adduced in support of the facts is spectacular too

I think Scalia will do what he always does: he'll start by thinking about what a real a-hole in a position of power would do, then he somehow finds that the a formalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution totally mandates that he be an a-hole. Then he goes on a hunting trip with lobbyists.

No I don't find that reasoning very cogent. It proceeds on the false assumption that same-sex persons are barred from marriage when in fact no such inquiry is made. It fails to recognise the ways in which same-sex attraction is unnatural and potentially deleterious, and should therefor be discouraged, and is so wide in its ambit as to legitimise other forms of union for which there's little or no appetite. In effect, that way of thinking is like saying that the exclusion of same-sex pairings from the Wimbledon mixed doubles discriminates against gays and lesbians since they can't enter the competition as a team. In fact, Wimbledon doesn't inquire into a person's sexuality - it simply says that pairings must be of the opposite sex. Somehow I don't think the Lawn Tennis Association is about to change its rules on account of the kind of 'reasoning' coming out of your courts so that the term 'mixed doubles' is all of a sudden given to mean that any team can enter.


km

Facts? Which ones? What you've got there is mixed fact and fiction.

km